> I certainly hope that is some politicized hype printed in that article > and not real.
For example, if I have a copy of a copyrighted piece that I am not authorized to redistribute on a server and I send someone a hyperlink to it so they can download it, I can see that as different from sending them a hyperlink to the legitimate distribution outlet for the piece and I am concerned that the author of the article has been careful not to mention that distinction for the sole purpose of making it appear much more draconian than it really is. On the other hand, giving a third party ANY access to my employees' correspondence for ANY purpose is reason to be seriously concerned as that could be abused in any number of ways.
